.. t - Is Government necessary? Conversations with businessmen, executives, writers, and teachers who don't think so. GOVERNMENT ANARCHY ON THE RIGHT There is a new philosophy being culti­ orderly and stable than the organized vated across the land. It calls itself liber­ chaos that is our present system of gov­ tarianism, anarcho-capitalism, autarchy. ernment. The new libertarians, as most of Its followers make up a wide spectrum of the new anarchists call themselves, con­ well-educated, productive people. They tend that government, by its very nature, include corporation presidents, execu­ is the world's greatest creator of chaos tives, writers, students, and teachers. and fear. They cite the wars of the past They share a vision of a completely free fifty years that have brought catastrophe society, established on the principles of to many enlightened nations: the extermi­ individual sovereignty and private owner­ nation of millions of people by govern­ ship, without any government whatever. ment acts; Vietnam; Watergate; police No government? Why that's anarchy, corruption; rapacious taxation; inflation; a you might say, and anarchy is a word that justice system with medieval punishment inspires images of chaos, rampant law­ and retribution; the Supreme Court deci­ lessness, and mass fear. sion on obscenity that has caused instant But what is peculiar about the "new confusion and uncertainty; and oppressive anarchy" is that il claims to be far mQre laws that reslricl our economic and social -~/973 ~,3 lives. They see taxation as theft and mili­ tary conscription as slavery. Most people tolerate all this in the name of government and law and order. Their assumption is that without government conditions could get much worse. But would Ihey? Has history not shown that when governments are destroyed people not only manage to survive, but the basic 'fabric of society is maintained? Does society not depend more on individ­ ual self-control for stability and prosperity than on government control? Perhaps "anarchy" is the wrong word to apply to a system wherein individual freedom and rights to property would be the fundamentals of a governmentless so­ ciety. The old-style anarchists, born in the early days of the industrial era, cham­ pioned individual freedom but thought property was that freedom's enemy. They saw government as enforcing the property system, and therefore they went to great extremes, including bombings and assas­ sinations, to bring governments down. The old anarchists conceived the ideal society to be communal, a concept that contradicted the notion of individualism. They fell into this contradiction because they lacked a proper understanding of economics, of the connection between freedom and property-between a man's productivity and the ownership of his tools and products of his labor. They did not understand the marketplace or the principles of human action :hat govern the creation of wealth. They did not under­ stand that a man could control his own life only to the degree that he could con­ trol his property. But could not government be used in a limited way to protect individual freedom and property? Is not our present govern­ ment a perversion of the ideal of limited government envisioned by our founding fathers? To answer these and other ques­ tions about a society with zero govern­ ment, I talked to some new anarchists­ including a professor of economics in New York, a best-selling writer in Van­ couver, and a corporation president in Wichita. I talked in New York with Murray Roth­ bard, professor of economics at the Poly­ technic Institute of Brooklyn. I had met him ten years before, when he was al­ ready known for his radical anarchistic views which then carried little weight among political conservatives who be­ lieved in limited, constitutional govern­ men!. Ten years ago, a distrust of gov­ ernment, especially big government, was all that Rothbard and political conserva­ tives had in common. They generally agreed that the less the government in­ terfered with the economy, the better. Since then, Rothbard has written a num­ ber of books on economics and has be­ come a spokesman for right-wing anar­ chism or, as he calls it, "anarcho-capital­ ism." He has acquired a large following, and his most recent book, For a New Liverty (Macmillan, 1973), is bcing adver­ through voluntary, rather than forced, than of being murdered by a relative. tised as the "libertarian manifesto." agreement. Military defense could be pro­ If the government cannot eliminate Rothbard told me that he had arrived at vided by private military agencies employ­ deaths by suicide or accident, why should his ideology through the influences of his ing volunteer personnel. we expect it to eliminate deaths by mur­ parents and teachers, Living in N~w York, According to Rothbard, the main bone der? Governments have been the greatest his mother and father were involved in the of contention between the two groups is murderers. Why should we expect a mur­ Emma Goldman anarchist movement be­ the handling of criminals. "The Randi.ans derer to protect us from murder? fore World War I; but later, during the De­ insist on a code of objective law to ha~dle "Prisons are more for the punishment pression, his father became a free-market and punish wrongdoers. We suggest ·that of lawbreakers than the protection of so­ , conservative. While in preparatory school, the emphasis should be switqhed from ciety," Rothbard went on. "There are a Jot young Rothbard was greatly influenced punishing wrongdoers to getling restitu­ of taxpayers who are not interested in by a history teacher who was free-market tion for the victims. Private police would supporting institutions of punishment. oriented. not be interested in investing time and That's another important difference be­ Pursuing the free-market argument to energy in 'punishing' criminals for their tween us and the Randians. Randians are its conclusion, Rothbard could find no crimes, but in retrieving stolen goods. Os­ punishment- oriented, and they spend a lot functions or govE'rnment that could not be tracism would be society's principal of time arguing over what punishments performed as well or better by private means of 'punishment.' " will fil what crimes." agencies: Why maintain expensive prisons and the I had once attended a series of lectures "I found in my arguments with social-. apparatus of punishment and incarcera­ given by Nathaniel Branden, the intellec­ ists and interventionists that once you tion? In Rothbard's system the threat of tual heir of Ayn Rand before their bitter justified the existence of the state, once ostracism would be a great deterrent to breakup in 1968. There was something pe­ you sanctioned the use of force to control crime; keep in mind that a human being culiar about the Randians' lack of humor. people, for no matter what reason, you can take and even enjoy all kinds of pun­ These people were always deadly serious could justify taxation and every other evil 'ishment (punishment, in psychoanalyst about their perfection and everybody and excess of the state." Eric Berne's terms, is stroking of a kind). else's imperfection. Of course, everyone For Rothbard, everything came down to But few men could bear ostracism-or no was jUdged according to the Randian stan­ one basic question: was government nec­ stroking-for long. II is probable that in a dard of perfection, which the Randians in­ essary at all? Tom Paine had called gov­ sisted was based on the coldest, most ra­ ernment a "necessary evil." But after two tional objectivism. The truth is that Ayn hundred years of American government Libertarian Sampler Rand's idea of perfection is based on her and the full flowering of capitalism, one For a New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard. own SUbjective ideal, suited entirely to her I could finally ask if even that "necessary Macmillan, 1973. $7.95. own nature. evil" was necessary. Rothbard has con­ How I Found Freedom in iI'n Unfree World, Despite these negative aspects of Rand­ cluded that it is not. by Harry Browne. Macmillan, 1973. $7.95. ian philosophy, many of her followers I! The Nature 0/ Man·and His Government, What about ecology, roads, educating have been led into the libertarian move­ I the poor, the national defense? Rothbard by Robert LeFevre. Caxton Printers, Cald­ ment by her arguments against collectiv­ well, Idaho. $1.00. goes into considerable detail in his book ism and statism, as well as by her sup­ No Treason: The Constitution 0/ No Au­ on these questions and how they would be thority, by Lysander Spooner. Pine Tree port for laissez-faire economics. Randians handled in a libertarian, governmentless Publications, Rampart College, 104 West were among a group of libertarians in society. If one thinks of these problems in Fourth Stree~ Santa Ana, Calif. 92701. $1.50. Colorado who decided to organize the libertarian terms, a number of noncoer­ Liber/arian Handbook 1973. 193 Beacon Libertarian party in the winter of 1971. cive solutions are suggested. A libertar­ Street, Boston, Mass. 02116. $2.00. During its first year, the party concen­ ian society assumes a sufficient reservoir LP News. libertarian Party, Box 31638, trated on the presidential candidacy of of goodwill and voluntarism to look after Aurora, Colo. 80011. $2.00 subscription. Dr. John Hospers. He is director of the the helpless and indigent. Liberals believe Books lor Libertarians. 422 First Street, School of Philosophy at the University of that people have to be forced to help the S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003. $1.00 sub­ Southern California and one of the liber­ scription. unfortunate. Libertarians disagree, they tarian movement's leading spokesmen. are optimistic about basic human benevo­ The party got its ticket on the ballot in lence, and believe it would flower more in only two states (Colorado and Washing­ a voluntary society than a coercive one.